Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the notice of demand dated 16.10.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ application) whereby the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Patna, respondent No.3, has directed it for payment of the amount mentioned in the said demand notice on the ground that it has wrongly allowed discount on the components of excise duty and licence fee. Subsequently, the petitioner has also filed amendment petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, respondent No. 1 (Annexure-9) wherein he directed the authorities for collection of sales taxes on the discounts allowed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of country liquor. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed the return and has also paid the sales tax amount as per the return. 3. According to the authorities, the discount which includes even with regard to the amount of excise duty and licence fee has wrongly been allowed by the petitioner and as such it is liable to pay the sales tax even with regard to the amount of discount allowed by it. 4. This Court has considered the provision of the Bihar Finance Act in several cases and has held that once the dealer files a return and deposits the amount as per the return as provided under Section 16 of the Act, the authorities cannot demand the higher amount unless the return is either disapproved or the assessment proceedings are finally concluded and demand is made in pursuance of the same. In this connection reference may be made to the recent judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9901 of 2002 disposed of on 16.09.2002 (M/s. Pro Agro Seeds Co. Ltd V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors) [reported in 2002(4) PLJR 657 ] wherein in paragraphs 7 and 8 it has been held as follows : 7. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that there is an elaborate provision under the Act for determining the liability to pay tax and the machinery to make the liability menteffective. It also provides for assess of the liability as mentioned therein and then provides for mode of recovery or collection of tax. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that there is an elaborate provision under the Act for determining the liability to pay tax and the machinery to make the liability menteffective. It also provides for assess of the liability as mentioned therein and then provides for mode of recovery or collection of tax. It also contains a penal provision in case of default in payment of tax in terms of the provisions of the Act. According to the provisions of the Act, the dealer is required to file a return in the manner prescribed under the Act, read with the Rules and also to pay the tax due according to the return. In case the tax due according to the return is not filed then a demand notice is issued under section 25 of the Act and on failure to pay the same, the dealer is liable to pay the penalty under the provisions of the Act. Once the return is filed then assessment has to be made under the provisions of the Act determining the liability of the dealer to pay the tax and if at the time of assessment, the dealers liability is found to be more than what is shown in the return, then he is liable to pay amount in terms of the demand made under section 25 of the Act and on failure the consequences mentioned therein would follow. In course of any proceeding or otherwise if the assessing authority is satisfied that the dealer has concealed any sales or purchase or any particulars thereof, or has furnished a wrong information in the return furnished under sub-section (1) of section 16, then after giving opportunity of hearing to the dealer, the penalty is to be imposed and the dealer has to pay the tax in addition to any tax which is or may be assessed under section 17 of the Act. There is no provision under the Act, which empowers the assessing authority to demand tax more than what has been due according to the return prior to the assessment proceeding. There is no provision under the Act, which empowers the assessing authority to demand tax more than what has been due according to the return prior to the assessment proceeding. 8.At this stage, it is clarified that if at the time of assessment, it is found that the statement made in the return filed under section 16 of the Act is incorrect or false and the sales tax, which is due according to the assessment, has not been paid, then the authorities are empowered to pass an appropriate order under the provisions of the Act, but so long the assessment is not made under the provisions of the Act, the authorities are not empowered under the Act to demand additional amount of tax as per their own estimation, except the tax, which according to the dealer, is due as per the return." 5. It is not the case of the respondent-department that additional amount of sales tax has been demanded either after disapproving the return as provided under the Act or after the final assessment proceeding. In that view of the matter the demand of tax in excess of the amount which the petitioner is liable to pay as per the return filed is impermissible and accordingly the aforesaid notice of demand contained in Annexure-2 is quashed. 6. So far Annexure-9 to the writ application is concerned, it is to be stated that under the provisions of the Act, the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, respondent No.1, is not empowered to issue any direction and this Court has already held in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10949 of 2002 disposed of on 27.09.2002 (Nagendra Prasad V/s. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & ors) [reported in 2002(4) PLJR 683 ] Annexure-5 to the writ application, that the Commissioner has no power to issue any direction which directly or indirectly interfere with the exercise of quasi judicial power by the authority under the Act. Inspite of that, the Commissioner has issued the aforesaid direction which in our view, is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.2002, contained in Annexure-9 is also quashed. The respondent No.1 is well advised to read the orders of this Court before issuing any direction so that parties may not be unnecessarily harassed. Inspite of that, the Commissioner has issued the aforesaid direction which in our view, is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.2002, contained in Annexure-9 is also quashed. The respondent No.1 is well advised to read the orders of this Court before issuing any direction so that parties may not be unnecessarily harassed. The respondent No. 1 is also advised to circulate the judgment of this Court to the authorities to minimise the litigation in this State. The Assessing Authority will now give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the assessment proceeding within six weeks from today. 7. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction.